Posted
by
Zonk
on Friday July 13, 2007 @11:58AM
from the strange-week-to-be-a-nintendo-fan dept.

After Nintendo's very ... different ... press conference, you may be wondering what's going on. In a roundtable discussion with Nintendo, folks like Eiji Aonuma and Shigeru Miyamoto discussed Zelda, Mario Galaxy and WiiFit, giving some context to the message the company had on Wednesday. The balance board begged the question from the people there, is Nintendo ditching the hardcore? According to the Nintendo folks, not at all: "Aonuma believes that control can be pick-up-and-play, but that doesn't necessarily mean a game overall has to be easier. But he still states that his 'goal was always to appeal to...a vast audience.' One attendee pushed the issue further, asking if all Zelda games from now on are going to cater to the more casual crowd--will we ever again need a strategy guide to complete a Zelda game? Aonuma says that judging by Japanese sales so far, accessible 'stream-lined play has been effective,' but he wants to see how Western audiences react to the new Zelda before making a final decision on future games' difficulty levels. Aunoma also hopes to venture into new territory and create a wholly original game at some point in his career." For a lengthy treat, check out Kotaku's series of interview clips with Mr. Miyamoto.

For example: I've been playing Gradius III (SNES) very casually lately: about 7-15 minutes every few days. It's hard as hell, so I die within that time period and look forward to the next time I play when my skills will hopefully be a little better.

Even if all the Wii games are "casual" games, they won't necessarily be easy.

Hehe, just wait till you get to the high speed level. It's probably the shortest playtime level in the game, but likely one of the most difficult to master. Of course, unless you are using save states, that level might not be reachable in your playtime.

Depends on what you mean by complete. If you mean that it's bad for a game to need a strategy guide to finish the main storyline, I'd agree with you. If you're saying that complex side-quests are a bad thing, then I'd have to disagree.

As an example of something so redonkulously unintuitive that it makes someone wonder what the hell the game makers were thinking, just look at a game like Final Fantasy 12.

Obtaining the best weapons in FF12 is literally IMPOSSIBLE without a strategy guide/faq. Hell to get the "best" weapon, The Zodiac Spear, a player has to refrain from opening 4 specific chests throughout the course of the game. If one does not open these 4 chests, a chest in an optimal dungeon near the end of the game will contain the Spear (otherwise it will be empty). The 4 chests you can't open are not distinguished in ANY way and are in plain sight, making the entire process retardedly obscure.

I enjoyed FF12, but stuff like that made me wonder what the fuck Square was thinking. If Nintendo can make games that don't resort to that kind of bullshit just to sell a $20 game guide, them I'm all for it.

I enjoyed FF12, but stuff like that made me wonder what the fuck Square was thinking. If Nintendo can make games that don't resort to that kind of bullshit just to sell a $20 game guide, them I'm all for it.

They were thinking that you would pay $20 for a game guide. You don't really think that someone just sits down and figures out which 4 of the hundreds of chests not to open, do you? 8*)

Most of the reason I use a strategy guide is make sure I don't miss something.A lot of side-quests in many games involve hunting for certain items across the world. The locations these items are hidden in may be somewhat obscure. In addition, various dungeons in games will hide certain bits of treasure in strange places.

Basically, these are exactly the sort of things that I would've picked up on on the 2nd or 3rd replay of a game when I was in high school that made those games great to replay. However, a

Having helped design a large puzzle hunt, I can tell you that the puzzles that were SO unintuitive that the majority of players needed "walkthroughs" to make it were definitely the WORST ones, no matter how clever they seemed once you knew how they worked. A puzzle with an "aha" step that is a complete nonsequitur and not a standard "thing to try when you're solving a puzzle," with no information on how to get there, that relies entirely on reading the constructor's mind, is a BADLY WRITTEN PUZZLE. The puzz

Odd. I finished Twilight Princess with only having to hit up FAQs twice I think. And that was when I couldn't figure out some pretty damn obvious things in retrospect. Not I said finish. Not find every damn thing in the game.

Same thing with the Zelda:Oracle games on the Game Boy Color.

I think I stopped using strategy guides maybe 6 years ago. Gaming is a lot more interesting without something to hold your hand.

That varies by person (not your attitude, but whether or not a game needs a strat guide). Some people probably couldn't make it through the original Mario Brothers without a strat guide. Some people can crank through the most complex game there is with no guide (especially those who have to WRITE those guides in the first place:)). Problem is, what data point is good? If they make a game that anybody who tries to complete it will do so, then for some gamers it's going to be boring as hell. Games to many are about challenge. On the flip side, if it's too complex, the less skilled and casual people will get frustrated and give up.

The solution, and it's a simple one, is for manufacturer's to just realize that there are different market segments, and make a variety of games that appeal to each different segment. The market WANTS some really, really hard games. It wants some dirt easy ones. It wants some long games, some short games. It wants some violent games, and some non-violent ones. Give 'em what they want.

To get over sections full of small jumps, hold the run button and run across.

Likitu is a pain. The best strategy for dealing with him is...

Hammer Bros. are an enemy that require precise timing and movement to defeat. The best strategy is...

Seriously, anyone remember when strategy books were about strategy and not just answer keys? I probably still have my SFII strategy guide somewhere, which goes into detailed strategies that people figured out for playing the various characters in the game. This included sets of combos that were most effective against particular opponents and at what ranges.

Oh yes. I remember even buying a Street Fighter II strategy VIDEO (VHS) that I must have watched 20-30 times:). At the end it had a preview for Super Street Fighter II, which just left me slobbering. Being the aspiring little kid that I was, I even started writing my own SSF2 clone in QBASIC. It didn't get very far (I had figured out how to draw shapes and clear the screen, then redraw them for animations, but I hadn't yet figured out what a loop was, so for my intro, which was all I ever managed to get working on it, I sat there manually typing out new positions of the shapes for pages and pages before giving up). Almost embarrassing to tell that story now, but I was only like 9 years old at the time. I promise I can write a proper loop now. Occasionally I can even get them to terminate:D.

Well, that might be the original SUPER Mario Brothers strategy guide. The original Mario Brothers strategy guide would have to say "Don't touch the enemies coming out of those pipes. Hit them from below to flip them over. Kick them off the platform before Luigi does."

or the ADVANCED TIPS:

"Wait til Luigi tries to kick the enemy off the platform. Just before he does, hit it from below to flip it back over and kill Luigi!"

Personally, I think the perfect difficulty for a game is that it always feels like a challenge, but somehow never prevents you from progressing. You should never just get "stuck" on some part of a game with no idea on how to move on for weeks at a time, the only way to continue is to cheat in some way. (And yes, in my mind, looking up info in a game guide is "cheating")

Honestly, most people don't enjoy grinding to beat a boss. Zelda has always had the best strategy to deal with that problem. To get to the boss, you need to be right equipment to beat him. That doesn't have to be easy, but it is a hell of a lot more sane and enjoyable than backtracking into another hour or two of random battle hell.

I like the (2D) Metroid philosophy even more: make it possible (but tricky!) to avoid getting the upgrades and equipment that toughens you up. For those who want a real challenge in boss fights, there's the option of a 2% run, speed run, etc. For those who want a challenge in exploration, there's the 100% run. And for those like me who seldom have an interest in , there's a damn fine game in between all that that I can enjoy at my own pace.

It seems to be that recently everybody seems to be associating games with a decent length to "hardcore." While I don't entirely agree with this, it serves my purpose for this post.

If we look at what happened at E3 and where the anticipation seems to be, I note that Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3. Looking at the past, these games predecessors have typically been quite lengthy affairs. Thus, it would seem that these games appeal more to the "hardcore" crowd.

We also see games like Wii Fit and Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Wii Fit, which seems to resemble the mechanics used in Wii Sports and Wii play, will sport short games. SSBB is often seen as a quick, pick-up-and-play-a-round style game as well. These games appear to appeal more to the casual gamer who don't have as much time to play.

I guess what I'm saying is, whether you're "hardcore" or casual, you have some really great games to look forward to this year and next.

It seems Nintendo thinks that by releasing a new Zelda game every few years, they are catering towards the "hardcore" crowd. I don't consider myself a hardcore gamer, but I have been a Nintendo fan my entire life. I bought a Wii on release date along with Zelda and quickly beat it. Then I sold the Wii to my brother-in-law as at the time there was still a huge shortage and I told myself I'd pick up a Wii as soon as I could find one. However, I am simply not interested in picking up another Wii until at least Super Smash Bros. comes out. Absolutely no games have interested me. I haven't seen a single game that I would buy if I still owned the system and still, the only thing I'm looking forward to is Super Smash Bros. And now I'm hearing rumors that SSB might not include online multiplayer, which for me, is a deal breaker. I played hundreds of hours of SSBM for the Gamecube during high school and college, but I don't live near any of my old friends anymore, there's simply no way for me to get the full experience out of SSB without online.

I'm personally feeling alienated, but I'm not really Nintendo's primary focus anymore, I don't think. I enjoy games like Okami, God of War, Guitar Hero, Grand Theft Auto, 2D Castlevanias, and RPGs. I still enjoy my DS, but I can't see myself picking up a Wii again until it's cheaper. I haven't considered myself a "hardcore gamer" for years, but yet I feel like Nintendo has moved on with the Wii. But I can live with that, the DS and PS2 still provide me tons of games I'm interested in.

This whole discussion makes me think of a story about an elderly couple driving down the road. The wife sees a young couple in another car, cuddling close. She asks her husband, "Why don't we snuggle like that anymore?" Her husband (who is driving) looks at his wife, sitting less than two feet away from him, and replies, "Well, I'm still sitting where I've always sat."

Super Mario Brothers. Metroid. Zelda. Later, Super Smash Brothers, Paper Mario... it's not that you're not Nintendo's primary focus "anymore," it's that the games you play have moved to other platforms (though, with the Wii's success, they appear to be moving back). Nintendo is still doing exactly what it has always done, only with the Wii they are trying to correct some of their mistakes with the N64 and (more) with the GameCube as well as expand their audience. Every game I've come to expect, as a "hardcore gamer," from Nintendo--Smash Brothers Brawl, Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, Super Paper Mario--is being delivered. Look at your list of games. God of War is a Sony title, but I think every other title on your list is third-party. Whether or not it appears on a Nintendo system is not really up to Nintendo, except the part where Nintendo needs to have sufficient installed user base to attract third-party titles

And with the Wii, that's exactly what's happening. There is a lag, of course, because so many developers wrote the Wii off as Nintedo's last gasp, but the titles are coming. And in the meantime, Nintendo is delivering everything they've always delivered, plus even more in an attempt to gather the casual gamers in.

I have certainly felt the lack of RPG titles on my Nintendo consoles since the SNES. I'm really, really hoping Camelot (the makers of Golden Sun) deliver a great RPG for the Wii, but I'm also looking forward to Crystal Chronicles (the first one was a blast to play with my wife and brother, we scheduled every Saturday night for weeks on end). But don't mistake flagging third-party support for any move on Nintendo's part. It's the "hardcore" who have moved (myself excluded, I guess) to FPSs and MMORPGs and HDTVs instead of adventure games, party games, games you play with other people in the same room and games you play for the fun of playing instead of the fun of griefing n00bs and bragging about polygons.

Well said!I'm not yet sure that all the whining about Nintendo "abandoning" the hardcore is any different from the whining about the GC being too "kiddy".

Play the games you want to play, on the systems that they're available. I don't understand what sense of entitlement moves people to argue that Nintendo should be loyal to them as individuals, all the while claiming that what they really want is a conventional controller and long RPG games, which are already available, and the hardcore probably already ow

I'm replying to this because I mistakenly modded it down. I really think you're right on the money here. The Wii is becoming very appealing as its base of titles grows, allowing Nintendo to recover from their N64/GameCube mistakes.

### Super Mario Brothers. Metroid. Zelda. Later, Super Smash Brothers, Paper Mario...There was a time where Nintendo was not about endless sequels. All those games Nintendo has for the Wii are the same stuff they already had for the Gamecube, not even the graphics are all that different. If Nintendos games would have a continuous story line that might not be that bad, but Zelda is the same thing over and over again and it gets tiring.

Whatever happened to games like Pikmin, Starfox, YoshisIsland, StuntRaceFX

Aonuma says that judging by Japanese sales so far, accessible 'stream-lined play has been effective,' but he wants to see how Western audiences react to the new Zelda before making a final decision on future games' difficulty levels.

I thought the Japanese players were the hyper-obsessive 'hardcore' gamers who explored every nook and cranny of a game.

I wonder what's going on with Japanese gaming demographics such that 'stream-lined play has been effective'.

Nintendo wants to tap into the casual market for the same reason nVidia and AMD (ATI) make all those low and mid range video cards. You make a heckuva lot more money and get your product into more people's hand.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Even if they attempt simplified Zeldas and Metroids its not going to mean that traditional ones dissapear forever. For the established gamer Zelda and Metroid are franchises to the casual audience its just another game to choose from. If the game doesnt sell to the usual crowd it will either have to stand on its own as enjoyable title or they will no doubt go back to drawing board and try to recapure the audience they already had. Mario is in a different league, its recognized by non-gamers just like Pokemon and Sonic, so thats not a concern with those titles.

The Wii could very well be a gateway console for gaming leading people to the harder stuff down the road. I really cant see Nintendo totally abandoning their established fan base, but I can see an extra emphasis being put on grabbing new gamers. There are still plenty of "hardcore" titles in the pipe. Don't worry about it, no need to be elitish about it, the more people gaming the better.

I used to define myself as a 'hardcore' gamer. In college, all night-lan parties every weekend were the norm. Games had to have ludicrous depth and complexity before we'd consider including them.

Times change. I'm married. 2 kids. 9-6 job in a cube. I now love the fact that so many games that are available are simple 'pick-up-and-play-in-the-evening'. In a way, Nintendo's game console has evolved to match my needs just as my needs changed. I imagine I'm not alone.

Nintendo is going right on ahead with its current strategy of attracting non gamers. Doing so has worked pretty decently for them, and like any large company, they like money. They are not going to abandon the core demographic. They are still going ahead with Metroid and Smash Bros: Brawl. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that they are not focusing on the core either.

My biggest concern for the platform is that that instead of being known as the "Kid Console", they may become known as a non game console.

I am convinced that it is the 2nd and 3rd generation of Wii titles that will ultimately define the Wii. The first year has, as expected, suffered from a lack of big name titles. The launch was strong, but Metroid, Mario, and Brawl got pushed back too far. And because no one expected the Wii to do as well as it has, no one was developing 'core' games for the platform outside of the launch window. Of course, everyone scrambled to find a place on the bandwagon.

The casual titles are easy to develop. Core titles take alot more time. Until the first batch of 3rd party core titles come on stream, you will get pretty much what we already have. Kid games, Ports, some 1st party Nintendo titles, and casual games.

If Nintendo does manage to completely alienate the core gamer demographic, than that kind of title spread is what will dominate the platform. Certaintly entertaining, but that means that those seeking a more 'traditional' gaming experience will have to stick to the Xbox 360 or the PS3.

Actually, anytime a company focuses on a "New Demographic" they, by necessity abandon the old. The Wii isn't going to cater to "hardcore" gamers because it's not designed to do that. Nintendo's selling a lot of them to seniors and parents and you're going to mostly see software that caters to the most common owners of the system.

Everyone's been crowing about how the Wii is expanding the market, but in doing so they had to choose to abandon the current market. Why? Because what they were producing for the current market wasn't expanding the market. The Wii doesn't appeal to me at all, and not that much to my friends either. That's ok, we're not the target demographic for the Wii. We already have consoles. The Wii was never designed to appeal to us, and the only way it will ever appeal to us is if the games we want become exclusive to it. That's unlikely to happen, both the 360 and PS3 are designed to appeal to us by carrying the games we like to play and offering an experience that appeals to us.

So, yes, Nintendo abandonned the hardcore gamers years ago, but that's ok, we don't expect everyone to cater to our tastes. I don't expect the hardcore games to go to the Wii no matter how well it performs in the marketplace. Even if they try to sell them for the Wii at some point the developers of hardcore games will realize that the casual players who own a Wii won't buy their games because they're not looking for those games, they're looking for easy, casual games.

This is nothing new, it's been an obvious consequence of Nintendo's "new direction" since the Wii was released.

### I am convinced that it is the 2nd and 3rd generation of Wii titles that will ultimately define the Wii.I kind of doubt that there will be any larger change in the games that will be available for the Wii. Third parties are starting Wii development, but they are starting mini/puzzle/cartoon and whatever kind of games, they are not doing the AssassinsCreeds and BioShocks. It just wouldn't make sense to produce that kind of games for a market that is buying the console for a completly different set of game

And who are they? Isn't the engine for GTA4 used in a ping pong game? So is Sony ping pong hardcore and Nintendo ping pong casual? Or are hardcore gamers easily fooled? If games are created using placeholders, what does it say about someone who proclaims themselves a hardcore gamer based on the artwork of a chainsaw and blood spatter compared to a spatula and omelet? Are people proclaiming themselves to be hardcore the casual, just not smart enough to know?The Wii Fit is a technological advancement of the g

To me, the hardcore/casual designation is more about who the game is targeted to, not the difficulty level. Example: I consider Guitar Hero a casual game, but the difficulty level is very high on the harder levels. Easy to learn, very hard to master. A typical FPS like Halo is a hard game to learn (for someone new to FPSs), but very easy to master (the single player).

I define a hardcore game as a game targeted to the age 14-35 male demographic (approximately), and a casual game as targeted to the 6-

I think you have FPSes wrong. They are very easy to learn, but unforgiving, but when you go online you start to see that Single player skills are laughable and to truely be good you have to invest some real hard time into the game and know every little detail to the point where it's a sixth sense rather than just skill.

I feel the Wii right now is a classic Nintendo Console. It's just waiting for it's Mario 64, which looks to be Brawl this time round.

### I define a hardcore game as a game targeted to the age 14-35 male demographic (approximately), and a casual game as targeted to the 6-65 male/female demographic.I wouldn't pin down hardcore or non-hardcore on the age demographic, that would be to simplistic. Instead I would pin it down on a games complexity, not just the amount of buttons it needs, but also how many ways there are to interact with the game world and stuff like that. Something like Falcon4.0 is certainly very hardcore, since it simulates

### Same with Mario Kart vs Forza/GT.The irony here is that once up on a time Mario Kart was hardcore, it not only was a rather though game, it was also one of the first console racers to ever be 3D, allowing you to make 180 turns and stuff like that, while other games had you race in front of a 2D background allowing you only left/right steering and acceleration (Top Gear, Outrun, etc.). Mario Kart also had advanced stuff like ghosts racers for time trial.

For the life of me I cannot imagine why Nintendo would want to ditch their hardcore audience. They were the most important audience for the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube, practically the ones who kept the consoles afloat. I don't understand why they would want to cast aside that audience in favor of the casual gamers. Sure, casual gamers are a much bigger audience, but hardcore gamers are dedicated and faithful. Casual gamers will move from system to system; mark my words, once Microsoft and Sony drop the prices

"Aunoma also hopes to venture into new territory and create a wholly original game at some point in his career."

That's a pretty shameful statement on the current state of the 'art' in videogames. I suppose it's a natural result of the big-business nature of videogame and movie making, but the number of 'safe' sequels being churned out is frankly embarassing. Show some guts people and take a chance or two. Our culture will thank you for it.

The Wii focuses on an innovative controller. It's about having controls that are intuitive and easy to pick up and learn.I don't think "learning how to control the damn thing" should be part of what makes a game hardcore, which several "hardcore" games are. That is one reason to started getting less and less interested in console gaming when suddenly you had to remember which commands mapped to which of the 8-12 buttons plus D-pad on the controller. That much complexity? I'll just take a keyboard and pl

Right. Once FPS on my PC got too complicated (beyond ASDW and mouse) I gave up on PC gaming. There is something to be said for a simple interface.I personally wish Nintendo would release a high end game+Tivo+DVD system that ran at 1080p. The interface is terrific on the screen and the wiimote is intuitive, I just wish my PVR, DVD, and cable box were half as nice. The 480P looks ok, but it could be better still.

1080p and more GPU may satisfy the hardcore gamers, I would assume. Or do they need more butt

I have never been what people would call "hardcore" about games, but for the right content, I'll work on a game long enough to finish it, and found a couple things about playing non-casual games as a casual gamer.

I don't like having a clock against finishing every level. MAYBE on one part of one level, a short time limit to achieve a small, obvious goal. If I'm under the gun to finish every level, I just get turned off. Yet, the opposite is true too: I don't want to play if I can't save for the next

If you saw their E3 presentation and where companies like EA are putting resources in to then you would know the answer is yes.Nintendo doesn't give a rats ass about "Hard Core". They don't even care about "Medium Core".

Bring in the casual games and mini games! We need a good 20 or 30 Mario Puzzle Battle Party games.

Oh an Electronic Arts, you get it great to. You can produce a bunch of crappy games and not have to pay your developers anything, then sell it for a full price game! Then you can take the sa

After Nintendo's very... different... press conference, you may be wondering what's going on.

What's going on is that you witnessed an actual press conference, aimed at the main stream media, as opposed to an enthusiast-oriented hypefest. Nintendo saw the retooling of E3 as an opportunity to return to its intended roots, put on a show, and got their message out to those who needed to hear it. The point of the press event is to build up hype among retailers and the major press, which means communicating your vision, supporting your position, and giving them something to remember. This wasn't about abandoning gamers, hardcore, traditional, or otherwise.

Nintendo knows that the hardcore gamers get their news from Kotaku, NeoGAF, IGN, or other websites and internet fora. The diehards are the ones who are checking Smash Brothers Dojo daily to keep up with the new updates. The fanboys already check obsessively to keep up with breaking news on what is going to be available. They don't need to be the only ones attended to. Right after the conference concluded, Nintendo's E3 site went active, with new trailers for all the major upcoming releases and with lists of upcoming releases. The fans knew where to find it all, and didn't need for it to be shown on stage. And if they had any lingering questions, the round table session was devoted to fielding questions for and from the hardcore crowd.

That's not to say the enthusiasts were ignored. The first thirty to forty minutes of the event was dedicated to showing off the upcoming AAA titles for the benefit of the fans. They revealed that three major releases (Metroid Prime 3, Mario Galaxy, and Smash Brothers Brawl) are all coming out this year, with Mario Kart soon to follow. The announced that EA's entire sports lineup will be online, and that Medal of Honor will support 32 player online matches. They showed that they were specifically working with third-parties on accessory support to enhance gameplay options.

Nintendo then shifted focus and aimed straight for the USA Todays and WSJs out there with the last twenty minutes or so. They brought out the new IP with the broad appeal that is in line with their market strategy, becaues that was the ideal moment to make it known to the world. And they succeeded spectacularly in that the major newpapers were talking about Wii Fit instead of Killzone 2 or Halo 3.

Nintendo isn't abandoning the enthusiast market. What they are doing is making a conscious effort not to abandon the people who might become gaming enthusiasts, given the right gateway.

When I was a kid I had lots and lots of spare time but hardly any spare money. I could not afford many games, so if I bought a game I would try to get the most out of it. Having very long games which are fairly difficult suits kids who have time but not money. Now that I'm in my 40s, I have lots of spare money but hardly any spare time. What I tend to do is to buy a lot of games but not really play any of them through. Looking at my pile of PS2 games I would say that I have completed only about 5 per cent. I get immensely frustrated when I can't make progress in games even on the easiest setting. I'd guess that on average I get about 30% of the way through before concluding that I'll get more interest out of the first 30% of a new game than I will from trying to get past some problem in the current game. In my current job I tend to need to play lots of different types of game anyway, so it's not really a big problem for me. However, it is a bit annoying that I don't see the majority of the content in most of the games I buy and I suspect that people who don't need to play lots of games would pretty soon get sick of paying £35 for games if they're only going to see £10 worth of content. Do people like this eventually stop buying games?

I think that it's not just "casual" games that can support an audience of people like me (assuming I'm not the only one who feels this way). I believe that it should be possible to switch difficulties on the fly inside games and I also think that developers should include a stupidly easy mode so that people like me can see more of what the game has to offer. Of course I can go and look at cheats etc, but if the developers know that people are going to do that anyway, why not just make the facility part of the package? This way, even more traditional games can be played in a more "casual" manner if the player feels like it.

For all of the posts about Nintendo going soft, get a 360 or PS3. Seriously the Nintendo has always been the more "family oriented" gaming machine. While they do release some games that might be defined as "hardcore" now adays. It's still pretty much sticking to it's original game plan. With the Wii they added to their model by making it also fun to physically play, and makes it more aesthetically pleasing. I think they're going 100% in the right direction. Going to pick up RE4 for Wii tonight in fact.

Not at all, bro. I grew up on Nintendo and believe me there was more than enough to make someone hardcore. And certainly more hardcore than even current "hardcore" gamers consider themselves. Ninja Gaiden 1 and 2 for SNES, Gradius and Life Force -- these are OLD, and they are HARD but awesome and lots of people played the heck out of them and got very good.

SNES had plenty of challenging games that kept you playing for months because they were that good -- FFVI, Killer Instinct, etc. I still don't know a single person who has beaten Captain America and the Avengers for SNES (Genesis, yeah, but not SNES because in Genesis Captain could at least block with his shield...)

I don't think games have gotten more hardcore at all. In fact I think they've gotten *less* so in terms of challenge. How many people whined and moaned about how difficult the Ninja Gaiden for Xbox was? Those people were all spoiled by the fact that every game that's released nowadays is beatable by even remotely dedicated players. Ninja Gaiden 2 eats Xbox's NG alive in terms of difficulty on every level except Master Ninja (which was added later just for kicks, and isn't really relevant because one could have always slid the difficulty meter all the way to max in Baldur's Gate making that game impossible but who cares).

which is also why video games suffered as being a nitch market in the last 15-20 years, when back in the 70's early 80's they where something everyone played.

Nintendo has realized one of the biggest problems Sony and Microsoft didnt, that hardcore gamers are not a big market and catering to them severely limits your audience. If you look at some of the biggest games of the last few years, they cater to general audiences and are party games.

The original SMB (and many other games for the NES) had no save function. In order to beat the game, you had to either play for hours at a time or leave the console on and pray that there was no power outage (either caused by the electric company or your annoying little brother). There were plenty of games for the NES that were like that, many of which were much harder and took much longer. How is that not hardcore? What exactly is hardcore in your opinion?

Meanwhile over in Europe we had Atari STs, Amigas, Sega Megadrives and later PCs- how we wished we could play a pink princess like you.

Yes yes the Atari's, Amiga, Speccy, Commodore, Colecovision, etc, were out during that time. But in the mid 80s to late if you asked a child what a videogame was 99% would simply state "Nintendo" or name a Nintendo franchise. That is what Winckle was alluding to.

I believe the point the OP was trying to make was that during the original 8-bit NES's era of greatest success in the U.S., it was *nowhere* near as dominant in Western Europe. (Certainly not in the UK at any rate).

In fact, do you remember the Sega Master System, the NES's "flop" competitor as far as U.S. and Japanese markets were concerned? Well, believe it or not, the NES was outsold by the Master System in the UK, (partly due to better marketing).

Point is, no platform is immune from sequels. But who cares if they have new elements/stories/etc. Mario 1-3 are all basically the same story [well except USA #2], but they're still fun. So were the SNES and N64 versions of "the same game."

Nothing wrong with a fresh sequel. It's when they re-use story/graphics/maps/levels/etc wholesale that it becomes a ripoff [e.g. bomberman 1 vs. 2].

I'd consider most of those casual games, except for maybe Final Fantasy, which REQUIRES hours and hours of dedication in order to really enjoy it (not sure if that's actually the qualification for hardcore, but it's in there). Halo is one of the most casual games I've ever played, you can just pick it up and play it for 5 minutes and you'll have fun with it. Same (supposedly) with WWII shooters (although I find them boring no matter how much time you sink into them), Doom, Quake, UT, etc. Madden, actually i

I'd consider most of those casual games, except for maybe Final Fantasy, which REQUIRES hours and hours of dedication in order to really enjoy it (not sure if that's actually the qualification for hardcore, but it's in there). Halo is one of the most casual games I've ever played, you can just pick it up and play it for 5 minutes and you'll have fun with it. Same (supposedly) with WWII shooters (although I find them boring no matter how much time you sink into them), Doom, Quake, UT, etc. Madden, actually i

Actually, most FPSs bore me from lack of depth in exactly the same way, for the same reasons. They're repeatitive, episodic, and quick to pick up and put down... and this comes from someone who is inately HORRIBLE at FPSs.My theory is that there's very little difference between the mental dedication of Halo and Rayman Rabbids, but that the "badass" meter reads high enough for FPSs that most people who play them on a regular basis, tout the games, and themselves as "hardcore gamers".

The Final Fantasy games aren't exactly a never-ending series like the rest of the games you mentioned. There is no continuity between the games, and pretty much the only (important) thing they share in common is the genre and the developers. Unreal has also pretty much defined itself as being a very genetic FPS that incrementally improves itself from year to year, which isn't exactly a bad thing.I'd be happy if there were a Final Fantasy title on the Wii.

Ummm, are you comparing "hardcore games" to "thoughtful independent films"? Cause seriously, if that's your insight, you need to go back to the drawing board.

Videogames are meant to be fun - Nintendo is actually being innovative in finding new ways to be fun (as opposed to the "another CGI movie with talking hamsters" dig). It's Sony/Microsoft that are releasing yet another FPS/Madden game, again and again and again.

I sort of liken Nintendo to Pixar. The "badass meter" for WarioWare and Ratatoilli is extremely low, but they're probably a lot more creative and sophisticated than most of the generic blockbuster action films and games out there. It's sad to say this, but Finding Nemo probably had more sophisticated themes, jokes, and dialog than you'll find in 95% of other movies these days. But it's all about the "badass meter", of which Pixar films and Nintendo games read very low on.In many ways, it's children who are

Well, there's a distinct difference between games that are, from the ground up, "innovative", and games that involve a lot of creativity in order to make them as good as they were. Twilight Princess was so good because of all the attention to subtle aesthetic details. It's goal wasn't to be genre-breaking, but to be incedibly intriguing in its own right. Sometimes the most creativity goes into works that are not ground breaking, because there's so much concentration on subtlety. That's what I loved about Tw

"there is simply so much more money to be had in blasé games and infinite sequels."Yeah, they should instead concentrate on releasing the exact same FPS games and car racing games with shinier textures! Mario Party may be the eighth in the series, but the gameplay is entirely different from all of the previous iterations (though the textures are shinier, that's secondary).

Nintendo is not abandoning new IPs; they are abandoning the idea that the only way to improve is by adding better graphics and more

Nintendo is not abandoning new IPs; they are abandoning the idea that the only way to improve is by adding better graphics and more realistic blood spatters. Since that seems to be all that "hardcore gamers" want, they are feeling abandoned.

I want games involving more than one button. I want to be challenged a little bit instead of having watered down puzzles that a 10 year old could solve. I want a storyline and character development that is slightly more involved than the last episode of Pokemon.

I don't. I want a game that I can play without having to take a college course. I want a game that will let me get out of this damn chair and step away from this damn monitor. I want to PLAY!!. Wiiiiiii!!

The difference between Casual Play games and hardcore games are not that different except one for people who Like to play games to have Fun, vs. People who play games as a life choice. It is more like a studio deciding to make a continueing story soap opera vs. a half hour show where at the end of the day all the characters are back were they started. They both have there pluses and minuses the Soap Opera caters to a loyal fan base who will alter their lives to watch the show, thus getting consistant ra

Of course not. Ignore the fact that of the three Wiis I've actually seen in people's homes, two of those were in the homes of childless couples in their mid-twenties...

Oh wait, by "young adult" you may have meant "single male under 35 who still survives on pizza and ramen and spends all weekend blowing shit up while connected online to his single male friends," forgetting that some of us, despite still being young adults, have careers and relationships to maintain.

I'm really tired of this argument. If people want to complain about the lack of hardcore games now and that Nintendo has abandoned the core, where were they last generation? As far as I can tell, we're getting the same Zelda, Mario, and Metroid that were were last generation. These may have slightly different appeals, but they're still great games for gamers. If you don't think these games are hardcore, then what would you define as hardcore? If these games don't fit that bill, then Nintendo didn't have anything for you last generation for the most part and abandoned you long ago.

I think once Super Smash Bros. and a Monkey Ball game manage to come out they'll be fine in my eyes. Both of these games could be considered fairly casual, but my friends and I played them relentlessly when we were back in high school. We'd have ten hour Monkey Ball or Smash Bros. sessions down in my friends basement, trading off the controller for single player aspects of the game or going heads up in multiplayer, trying to break each others records or square off for bragging rights. You can even play Wii Sports pretty hardcore as a few of my friends and I found out over last Thanksgiving when I brought my new Wii home and we ended up playing Wii boxing for almost four hours straight. Even my friend's dad got involved and had a hell of a time.

They reason they spent so much time on Wii Fit is because it's completely new and hasn't really be done before. They want to make sure that it gets good press coverage and that people are aware of it. They want to give something new to the casual gamers who really haven't had much since Wii Sports. You can't build up this great system for the more casual gamers and then leave them out in the cold. With Mario Kart, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime: Corruption, and Super Smash Bros. all coming out within the next six months or so, I'd say they've got their core pretty well covered.

If for whatever reason you consider hardcore gaming to by violent or mature rated games (in which case I think you're an idiot) then there's plenty of fun to be had with The Godfather: Blackhand Edition, Resident Evil 4, and Manhunt 2 as well as the new Resident Evil game when they come out. I'm pretty sure that there will eventually be plenty of shooters and other such games on the console as well. It's only been out for abouth eight months now, give it some time.

I think the problem is that most people tend to think of themselves as hardcore gamers when it's convenient for them to say so. I'd wager that a majority of the people who claim that they are, really aren't. Just remember that because you play a lot of video games doesn't necessarily make you hardcore. Did you explore Twilight Princess without a guide to get all of the extra items? Do you do speed runs through the original Super Mario Bros. in order to see who could get the best time? Have you played a game competitively at a tournament? If you don't answer yes to questions like that, I don't consider you hardcore. You just spend too much time playing video games. Get over yourself.

So until someone can come up with a legitimate reason to suggest that Nintendo has abandoned their core or stopped caring about hardcore gamers, I think you're all just a bunch of whiny bitches looking for something to piss and moan about. Either Nintendo never was hardcore and stopped catering to their core ages ago or you're completely off base and full of crap. Maybe some of you are under the delusion that you're in Nintendo's core when you really aren't. I just think it's a load of crap no matter how you slice it.

"Okay from now on when I'm bitching and moaning I will qualify my requests for innovation with a request the innovative games actually be fun. Now Mario Bros., that shit was hard. What do I get now, Wii bowling?"I suppose if you don't enjoy bowling then Wii bowling isn't very fun. There are several other games in Wii Sports that you might enjoy though. I've found Wii Boxing to be incredibly fun when played with friends. To say Wii Bowling isn't difficult doesn't sound right. I'd say that it has a low learni

Normally I couldn't care less about grammar mistakes, but people misusing that phrase are in almost all cases just using it to sound smart. The indignance comes from the fact that over the years I (and many like me) have trained myself to use small words to avoid the Poindexter image. Sometimes, I'll get excited about a subject and forget to watch myself when I talk (usually when I'm drunk) and start dropping preternaturally's and vacillate's and if I'm lucky I get blank stares just when I'm really starting